The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

For philosophical reflections on the COVID-19 pandemic. How can philosophy help us to understand it, to combat it and to survive it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 5114
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by commonsense »

I think that part of the concern about natural immunity v. vaccination is that more people will die from the virus than from the vaccine. It all hinges on the balance between the good of all v the good of one.
mickthinks
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by mickthinks »

RG1 wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:16 pmI think it is your naive ignorance that is on full display here. Maybe this link and graphic might help you better understand "herd immunity". https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immu ... es-it-work

"Herd immunity happens when a virus can’t spread because it keeps encountering people who are protected against infection."

The small print below:
"Infected Person" says -- (Sheds virus into the environment).
"Healthy Immune Person" says -- (Prevents further transmission of the virus).


Covid Protections - med.jpg
Yes, RG1, that Oxford Vaccine Group article you have linked to explains the mechanics of herd immunity. It doesn't support your false "healthy people remove virus from the environment" version.

I grant you that that the graphic there is confusingly labelled—"[Healthy person] prevents further transmission of the virus" is open to misinterpretation if taken at face value without regard to the context of whatever article in which it appears. It doesn't come from the OVG article. It appears to published by a Texas-based Engineering company. I'm guessing it's your company, and you've simply uploaded the graphic to your company's web server.

Which leaves the question; who produced the poorly-labelled graphic? Where did you get it from?
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by RG1 »

mickthinks wrote:Yes, RG1, that Oxford Vaccine Group article you have linked to explains the mechanics of herd immunity. It doesn't support your false "healthy people remove virus from the environment" version.
Yes, you are correct, it doesn't (yet) support my conclusion that "healthy people remove the virus from the environment". My point can only be made after first understanding how herd immunity works.

The purpose of the graphic (which I found and uploaded to my company's website, so that I could then attach it into my post) is to support or clarify how herd immunity works, as there seems to be a general misunderstanding between the "protective effects" of social distancing and herd immunity. The main point I wanted to clarify is:

Herd immunity works because immune people STOP the transmission of the virus. In effect, immune people break (stops) vectors of virus transmission, whereas social distancing increases vector distances to achieve protection. Breaking vectors vs increasing vector distances are two different mechanisms of stopping/slowing covid virus.

Here are a couple of more graphics which help show the same thing:
Image

Image


********************
Image
mickthinks wrote:I grant you that that the graphic there is confusingly labelled—"[Healthy person] prevents further transmission of the virus" is open to misinterpretation if taken at face value without regard to the context of whatever article in which it appears.
The key word you are missing in that graphic is "Immune". It says "Healthy Immune Person". An "immune" person is someone that has been recently vaccinated or was previously infected (and now has antibodies).


******************
Mick, do you agree with the above distinction in the protective effects of herd immunity (as opposed to social distancing)? ...if so, then I will move forward in the discussion to ultimately prove "healthy people remove the virus from the environment".
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by RG1 »

*****************

The purpose of the three graphics above is to help clarify how herd immunity works, as there seems to be a general misunderstanding and confusion between the protective effects of herd immunity with that of social distancing. The main point I wanted to clarify is:

Herd immunity works because immune people STOP the transmission of the virus. Immune people break vectors (stop the transmission) of the virus to a neighboring vulnerable person (i.e immune person protects vulnerable person), whereas social distancing works by increasing vector distances (between infected person to vulnerable person) to achieve protection. Two different sets of people, two different types of protection, and two different mechanisms (breaking vectors versus increasing vector lengths).

Once the protective effects of herd immunity is clearly understood, then I can move forward in the discussion to ultimately prove "healthy people remove the virus from the environment", and then move on to the conclusion to show how continued masking and social distancing of our healthy population will ultimately destroy all human life.
mickthinks
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by mickthinks »

The purpose of the graphic (which I found ...

I would like to know where you found it. Whose epidemiological expertise is embedded in it?

Mick, do you agree with the above distinction in the protective effects of herd immunity (as opposed to social distancing)?

In as far as I can make out the distinction you have outlined, no.

One of the misunderstandings I think worth clearing up is the near-universal but mistaken idea that social distancing is about maintaining physical distances measured in feet or meters. It is actually about avoiding social contacts with people that you normally engage with regularly. As in, not going to church so often, and not going into as many shops as before. Of course you could translate that into physical distance terms, but they're the kind of distances you drive (to church or to go shopping etc.) and the actual distances don't matter.

There is also verbal confusion around the phrase "the virus", which talks about a pluralty of particles numbered in millions as if it were a single entity. Stopping the spread of "the virus" is not the same as stopping the spread of an oil spillage. It's more like stopping the spread of some false internet rumour about, say, herd immunity.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by RG1 »

RG1 wrote:Mick, do you agree with the above distinction in the protective effects of herd immunity (as opposed to social distancing)?
mickthinks wrote:In as far as I can make out the distinction you have outlined, no.
Do you not agree with science? ...that herd immunity is achieved by saturating a population with immune people such that when we reach a saturation percentage (called "threshold value") as determined by the equation T=1-1/R0 that this effectively stops the transmission of the virus, thereby protecting everyone including the very vulnerable?

mickthinks wrote:One of the misunderstandings I think worth clearing up is the near-universal but mistaken idea that social distancing is about maintaining physical distances measured in feet or meters. It is actually about avoiding social contacts with people that you normally engage with regularly. As in, not going to church so often, and not going into as many shops as before. Of course you could translate that into physical distance terms, but they're the kind of distances you drive (to church or to go shopping etc.) and the actual distances don't matter.
Good point. And I would also add that people don't actually infect other people. Therefore the "distance" between people seems somewhat irrelevant in regards to social distancing. In actuality, the transmission of the virus is from person-to-environment and from environment-to-person, and not from person-to-person that is intimated in most people's understanding of social distancing.

People get infected by being in contaminated environments (with or without other people present in that same environment), for the virus can last many hours airborne, and up to 9 days on surfaces within that environment.
mickthinks
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by mickthinks »

The purpose of the graphic (which I found ...

I would really like to know where you found it, so I'll ask a third time. Where did you find it? Whose epidemiological expertise is embedded in it?

Do you not agree with science?

I'm not discussing your ideas with "Science" . I am discussing them with you.

...that herd immunity is achieved by saturating a population with immune people such that when we reach a saturation percentage (called "threshold value") as determined by the equation T=1-1/R0 that this effectively stops the transmission of the virus, thereby protecting everyone including the very vulnerable?

That bears very little resemblance to the distinction between herd immunity and social distancing that you asked me about earlier. And I would add that "effectively stops the transmission of the virus" is misleadingly worded. The virus continues to be transmitted for as long as infected people remain in proximity to infectable people.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by RG1 »

mickthinks wrote:I would really like to know where you found it, so I'll ask a third time. Where did you find it? Whose epidemiological expertise is embedded in it?
I pulled these images off the internet.

RG1 wrote:...that herd immunity is achieved by saturating a population with immune people such that when we reach a saturation percentage (called "threshold value") as determined by the equation T=1-1/R0 that this effectively stops the transmission of the virus, thereby protecting everyone including the very vulnerable?
mickthinks wrote:The virus continues to be transmitted for as long as infected people remain in proximity to infectable people.
Correct. But that has nothing to do with herd immunity. In herd immunity, immune people shield vulnerable people from infected people by stopping the transmission of the virus.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by henry quirk »

This is fascinating data from the CDC. It seems the country was conducting over 2 million tests per day leading up to the presidential election and now that Dementia Joe is in the White House, they are only doing 1.3 million tests per day, a 35% reduction. Why would that be the case? Didn’t Basement Biden say they would be ramping up testing?

The day Sleepy Joe took office, the WHO announced that the PCR levels on testing should be reduced in order to capture less false positives. Shockingly, daily cases have plunged from 250,000 per day to 66,000 per day, a 70% decline since China Joe took office. It’s a freaking miracle and we owe it all to Emperor Gates, the Big Pharma jab, that troll Fauci, and of course lockdowns and masks. All hail our glorious leaders.

Of course we should ignore the data showing the exact same trend in Sweden and in states that didn’t lockdown or require masks. And how dare you question the narrative or speculate that tests and cases were ramped up to dispose of Trump, as part of the Plan. That makes you a white supremacist insurrection supporting Nazi.
-some net wag
mickthinks
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by mickthinks »

Mick: I would really like to know where you found the graphic, so I'll ask a third time. Where did you find it? Whose epidemiological expertise is embedded in it?
RG1: I pulled these images off the internet.

Some, maybe most, maybe nearly all, of the internet is an unreliable source of misinformation. Can you remember which site you pulled it from?

In herd immunity, immune people shield vulnerable people from infected people by stopping the transmission of the virus.

No they don't. Really. That is a non-truth.

Where on earth did you get it from?
mickthinks
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by mickthinks »

Mick: I would really like to know where you found it, so I'll ask a third time. Where did you find it? Whose epidemiological expertise is embedded in it?
RG1: I pulled these images off the internet.

Some, maybe most, maybe nearly all, of the internet is an unreliable source of misinformation. Can you remember which site you pulled it from?

In herd immunity, immune people shield vulnerable people from infected people by stopping the transmission of the virus.

No they don't. Really. That is a non-truth.

Where on earth did you get it from?
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by RG1 »

mickthinks wrote:Can you remember which site you pulled it from?
It was an image search, did not come from any specific site.

RG1 wrote:In herd immunity, immune people shield vulnerable people from infected people by stopping the transmission of the virus.
mickthinks wrote:No they don't. Really. That is a non-truth.
Really? Then please educate me how herd immunity works.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by RG1 »

henry quirk wrote: This is fascinating data from the CDC. It seems the country was conducting over 2 million tests per day leading up to the presidential election and now that Dementia Joe is in the White House, they are only doing 1.3 million tests per day, a 35% reduction. Why would that be the case? Didn’t Basement Biden say they would be ramping up testing?

The day Sleepy Joe took office, the WHO announced that the PCR levels on testing should be reduced in order to capture less false positives. Shockingly, daily cases have plunged from 250,000 per day to 66,000 per day, a 70% decline since China Joe took office. It’s a freaking miracle and we owe it all to Emperor Gates, the Big Pharma jab, that troll Fauci, and of course lockdowns and masks. All hail our glorious leaders.

Of course we should ignore the data showing the exact same trend in Sweden and in states that didn’t lockdown or require masks. And how dare you question the narrative or speculate that tests and cases were ramped up to dispose of Trump, as part of the Plan. That makes you a white supremacist insurrection supporting Nazi. -some net wag
So true, good stuff Henry!
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by RG1 »

RG1 wrote:In herd immunity, immune people shield vulnerable people from infected people by stopping the transmission of the virus.
mickthinks wrote:No they don't. Really. That is a non-truth.
It seems that you are confused like many others, by falsely conflating herd immunity as some form of social distancing. These are two different mechanisms!

Herd immunity works because immune people STOP the transmission of the virus. Immune people break vectors (stop the transmission) of the virus to a neighboring vulnerable person (i.e immune person protects vulnerable person), whereas social distancing works by increasing vector distances (between infected person to vulnerable person) to achieve protection. Two different sets of people, two different types of protection, and two different mechanisms (breaking vectors versus increasing vector lengths).
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The NON-TRUTHS of Our Current Covid-19 Policy

Post by Dontaskme »

Vaccinating people will not work to combat coronaviruses. As we've already seen with the more commonal garden flu vaccines.

Viruses will just get more and more virulent and become more and more of a danger to their host as they continue to evolve.

We'll reach a point where we will be vaccinating ourselves non-stop for ever. A Stupid and expensive idea, and toxic for the body.

There really is no hope or cure for sentient life except death. No one gets out of this virus and bacterial infested planet alive.

Just stop the fight and die gracefully. All life forms are basically just parasitic gouls consuming everything in their path. Including the human organism, especially the human organism.

We're all going to die, so why waste money and resources on flogging dead horses, it's an expense that is just not worth paying.

IMHO ...the only good thing about being alive is knowing it will end. No one has to agree with my views of course, each to their own, thoughts about living, what ever gets you through the day or works for you is what really matters.


.
Post Reply